The Athletic Dom Luszczyszyn gives the Sabres offseason a B+

[1point21Gigawatts]

It's hard to look at the "in" v "out" portion of the article with out pointing out that all of the "outs" with the exception of ROR were Botterill contracts (i am including Lehner because Botterill did give him another contract, even though GMTM brought him here).
It's not a good look and it certainly doesn't wipe his slate clean in regards to the players he has brought in.

 

[Jim Carr's Rug]

Dahlin's and Mittelstadt's additions are additions by additions.

Thank you- this is my new favorite sentence.

 

[Dreakon13]

It's hard to look at the "in" v "out" portion of the article with out pointing out that all of the "outs" with the exception of ROR were Botterill contracts (i am including Lehner because Botterill did give him another contract, even though GMTM brought him here).
It's not a good look and it certainly doesn't wipe his slate clean in regards to the players he has brought in.

That may be because he's grading the offseason, not grading Botteril's tenure as the Sabres GM thus far.

As difficult as it seems to be to not "go there" at every conceivable opportunity for some.

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

That may be because he's grading the offseason, not grading Botteril's tenure as the Sabres GM thus far.

As difficult as it seems to be to not "go there" at every conceivable opportunity for some.

How do you grade offseason moves without also grading the GM's tenure? You can't point out the benefit of getting rid of players when you're the one who brought them here.

 

[truthbluth]

I feel the need to buy a vowel.

Linguistic humor

 

[Chainshot]

Linguistic humor

I'm cunning that way. Like a fox even.

 

[joshjull]

How do you grade offseason moves without also grading the GM's tenure? You can't point out the benefit of getting rid of players when you're the one who brought them here.

That seems pretty obvious. You just grade the offseason moves. By your logic no GM that's been on the job 2 offseasons or more can have any individual offseason graded. He needs to have the totality of his work evaluated every single offseason. Which is pretty silly.

 

[pigpen65]

Botterill is banking on a lot of growth from within + a bit of shakeup of the existing roster,

ROR, Lehner, and Kane is more than a bit of a shakeup. Those were the 3 biggest acquisitions from the previous GM's tenure. Not to mention Fasching and Gorges.

 

[valet]

How do you grade offseason moves without also grading the GM's tenure? You can't point out the benefit of getting rid of players when you're the one who brought them here.

what do you mean? It's pretty easy. Kind of like how teachers can grade individual tests without giving their students their entire grade for the course

of course it can all be summed up into a cummulative evaluation, but it doesn't need to be for us to have our opinions about one particular stretch of time, or period of evaluation

 

[1point21Gigawatts]

what do you mean? It's pretty easy. Kind of like how teachers can grade individual tests without giving their students their entire grade for the course

of course it can all be summed up into a cummulative evaluation, but it doesn't need to be for us to have our opinions about one particular stretch of time, or period of evaluation

That seems pretty obvious. You just grade the offseason moves. By your logic no GM that's been on the job 2 offseasons or more can have any individual offseason graded. He needs to have the totality of his work evaluated every single offseason. Which is pretty silly.

Fair enough. I'll walk back my comment and quietly eat crow.
Maybe it's because Botts has only been on the job for two years that it's hard not to look at the in v out without looking at his tenure. But admittedly, i went pretty black and white there.

 

[valet]

Fair enough. I'll walk back my comment and quietly eat crow.
Maybe it's because Botts has only been on the job for two years that it's hard not to look at the in v out without looking at his tenure. But admittedly, i went pretty black and white there.

Yeah I can see your point. 1 off-season at this stage is a big part of his career as a gm, so maybe it means a lot about the direction he wants to go, but it also doesn't have to be indicative of anything more than it is

 

[enthusiast]

It looks like he’s docking us for process but deferring to the numbers overall.

tfw even the guy running them doesn't have faith in the numbers

 

[jc17]

On one hand I agree that it isn't a great look that the Outs are mostly his own acquisitions.

On the other hand at least we know he's not married to "his guys" and is willing to cut his losses when he identifies his guys didn't do well

 

[Dreakon13]

On one hand I agree that it isn't a great look that the Outs are mostly his own acquisitions.

On the other hand at least we know he's not married to "his guys" and is willing to cut his losses when he identifies his guys didn't do well

I can't imagine he was too attached to a bunch of 1 year signings of free agents that he grabbed out of the pile, because he had a single half offseason to fill numerous holes on his new, broken team with nothing more than video and hearsay to decide who would be the best fit.

 

[ZZamboni]

It’s July 19th .... off-season isn’t over yet.

I’ll hold that thought until October 3rd.

 

[Montag DP]

On one hand I agree that it isn't a great look that the Outs are mostly his own acquisitions.

On the other hand at least we know he's not married to "his guys" and is willing to cut his losses when he identifies his guys didn't do well

I can't imagine he was too attached to a bunch of 1 year signings of free agents that he grabbed out of the pile, because he had a single half offseason to fill numerous holes on his new, broken team with nothing more than video and hearsay to decide who would be the best fit.

Yeah. Most of "his guys" on the out were just filler anyway. I don't think it says much of anything other than the state the team was in when he inherited it.

 

[brian_griffin]

I can't imagine he was too attached to a bunch of 1 year signings of free agents that he grabbed out of the pile, because he had a single half offseason to fill numerous holes on his new, broken team with nothing more than video and hearsay to decide who would be the best fit.

Exactly. Who here hasn't garbage picked some castoff patio furniture and the like to make do for a season, knowing that you're not going to build the nice deck or pour the brand new patio until next summer?

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

I can't imagine he was too attached to a bunch of 1 year signings of free agents that he grabbed out of the pile, because he had a single half offseason to fill numerous holes on his new, broken team with nothing more than video and hearsay to decide who would be the best fit.

And he struck out on every one.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Yeah. Most of "his guys" on the out were just filler anyway. I don't think it says much of anything other than the state the team was in when he inherited it.

He took a bunch of swings and missed on every one. Plus Beaulieu who is still here.

 

[Dreakon13]

And he struck out on every one.

You aren't exactly getting the cream of the crop when your aim is safe, cheap 1 year FA filler deals. It was far more likely they wouldn't work out, than would. Especially on the toxic mess of a team this past year.

EDIT: If he didn't inherit this team with half an offseason to replace a sizable chunk of it, he wouldn't necessarily be getting a pass from me. Hence why this offseason was always much more important to see results from than the last one. Given the circumstances however, I'm not terribly concerned about how last offseasons pickups panned out.

 

[brian_griffin]

He took a bunch of swings and missed on every one. Plus Beaulieu who is still here.

He got Beaulieu at a flea market (traded 3rd round pick), not off the curb (UFA signing).

But yeah. In Beaulieu, Botts paid NIB mint price for a bootleg DVD in the wrong region code that is scratched and the sound is not synched to the picture.

 

[Montag DP]

He got Beaulieu at a flea market (traded 3rd round pick), not off the curb (UFA signing).

But yeah. In Beaulieu, Botts paid NIB mint price for a bootleg DVD in the wrong region code that is scratched and the sound is not synched to the picture.

How is spending a 3rd-round pick on a former 17th-overall pick paying NIB mint price? I mean, I agree, the Beaulieu trade was a swing and a miss, but let's not blow it out of proportion.

 

[Doug Prishpreed]

Given the circumstances however, I'm not terribly concerned about how last offseasons pickups panned out.

I know you aren't concerned with anything that makes Botts look bad -- you've made that abundantly clear.

 

[sabrebuild]

From the article i would think not. He doesn't list Dahlin as a player in.

If you read the article, it’s about the only thing we added that wasn’t just replacing stuff we already had.

Short version, he says RoR is possibly replaced by mitts. And the depth from the trade was expensive, and Berglund should be useful. And then it’s basically Sheary in for Kane. And then lower profile young guys.

And then there is a lot of words talking about Dahlin.

 

[Dreakon13]

I know you aren't concerned with anything that makes Botts look bad -- you've made that abundantly clear.

Up to this point? Eh... his biggest crime last offseason was the 3rd for Beaulieu and signing him to a two year deal, that was a pure swing and a miss. But even that barely moves the needle of concern (I liked the move at the time, most of us did). I would've liked to see Botts play around a little more with waivers just to try and find one or two cheap pieces that fit for funsies but IMO we weren't (and still aren't) one or two pieces of waiver fodder away from anything. This team was a bomb ready to go off at the slightest nudge, and the organizational and systemic overhaul last offseason was more than enough. It didn't matter who he picked up. I'm just glad they were safe, short deals and most of them are gone now.

I've been saying all along THIS is the offseason for Botts, and while I don't particularly like everything that's happened on paper... the jury is out on that until it's over and we actually see the team play. I'm staying cautiously optimistic. Which probably seems outrageously happy compared to the extreme pessimism of the boards here.